My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 8/29/2006
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 8/29/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:18:46 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:42:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Minutes
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Minutes
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
REGULAR
Meeting Date
8/29/2006
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
8/29/2006
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Conversion Meeting Type
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Prescott City Council Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 10 <br /> Accommodating developers at the expense of current residents is <br /> ‘11110r inappropriate and immoral. All decisions that benefit well healed <br /> developers at the expense of the surrounding neighborhoods smells like <br /> cronyism and corruption. This must stop. <br /> I ask that the re-zone be denied and all future consideration of using S. <br /> Virginia Street as an alternative thoroughfare to Mount Vernon be denied <br /> and denounced. Thank you. Kevin Tighe,249 South Virginia Street" <br /> Mr. Guice responded to the letter admitting the first correspondence that <br /> went out advised people they could speak on the 15th. He suggested that <br /> the Council may want to consider opening public hearings at a Study <br /> Session and not closing it and continuing to hold the public hearing at the <br /> voting session in the future. <br /> Councilman Blair asked what the General Plan called for in this area and <br /> Mr. Guice replied SF-18 or SF-35 would be consistent with the General <br /> Plan. <br /> Bruce Evans,744 City Lights Drive— <br /> • Urged Council to vote no on this project. <br /> • He was very familiar with the traffic in The Foothills. <br /> �rr • There was a stop sign at Autumn Breeze that no one paid any <br /> attention to. <br /> • Phase 3 of The Foothills was built after Mr. Evans moved in and he <br /> was downhill from it. <br /> • Many zoning changes had been previously approved. Other <br /> subdivisions already approved were expected to begin to develop <br /> soon and the traffic was going to increase with each one. <br /> • If The Homestead was approved with 36 more homes the traffic <br /> would have been increased by 300%to 400%. <br /> • Increased traffic would create a lot of danger. <br /> • They could still build 16 lots. <br /> • The canyon echoes a lot of noise. <br /> • Issue was the impact on the lives of the people living there; the <br /> environment;the canyon;the fumes from large trucks. <br /> Robert Reuillard,748 N.Sunset Ridge, Prescott Valley, <br /> • Speaking on behalf of the Homeowners Association of Foothills. <br /> • He noticed in an April 7 memo to Mike Bacon from Jeff Lowe, <br /> talked about the floodplain and it said the lot density looked too <br /> high for hillside development. <br /> • All three projects would share Senator Highway which was <br /> reported to be in desperate need of repair. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.